distic
6mo ago
Ok I didn't remember it correctly. I think economical consequences (losing money or things) are a special kind of social consequences, at least in a poll where you can't have infinitely many options
distic
6mo ago
The first example falls in the case of fearing sexually transmitted diseases. I'm not sure Ebola is officially one of them but in practice it is.
Badger games fall in the case of unwanted social consequences.
So it seems to me you don't need another case. But perhaps I'm missing something
distic
6mo ago
I don't know what they planned but remember that Hamas has a lot of hostages. They will probably do something spectacular but useless, unless they want to sacrifice the lives of the hostages which I doubt.
distic
6mo ago
It wasn't really a suicide mission for everyone, as they took so much hostages.
distic
7mo ago
The Musk example is bad, because Musk is more than thousand times richer than a subsaharan african, children cannot choose their parents, and Musk does not have 1000 children so it's particularly meaningless. And no, it's not better to be the billionth child of Musk than the child of an average american.
But anyway that wasn't my point. My point was that you cannot deduce your conclusion from your hypothesis. Maybe your conclusion is still right, but it remains to prove.
You cannot deduce that people are not born equal from the fact their parents are not equal, it's a mistake. There is a missing argument here. Indeed, assume that A is 10 times richer than B, but A has 10 children and B only has 1. Then the children are born equal, aren't they?
And also, the richest are only rich because everyone else is somewhat rich. You can only sell iphones or cars to people that are somewhat rich. Even amazon needs people to have phones or computers. So it regulates itself a little bit. I suspect the richest become relatively richer because the population grows. If you take 0.1 cent by product sold, it helps that there are more people.
distic
8mo ago
Yet another victim of the compromise ideology. Surely it makes sense to make peace with Putin, none of those that tried are there to complain.
distic
10mo ago
It's the only one that the Pope can really have. If Rome pretends to always tell the truth in a logical way, it's obviously false as some teachings have been contradictory. But if now you admit that it is not about the truth in a logical way, but about what must be believed, then it all makes sense. It even makes sense that they pretend to tell the truth in the usual meaning: they have to pretend it, because if something must be believed, it must be believed as if it were the only truth.
distic
10mo ago
You are still interpreting infaillibility as logical truthfullness. Rome is infaillible because what Rome says must be believed. If you want, Rome might not be wrong because the truth is whatever Rome says.
distic
2mo ago
I don't really know. I don't think there is any disparate impact law, you'd have to prove the disparate impact is intentionnal and thus that it falls in the scope of the anti discrimination law.
distic
2mo ago
Now Dmitri Markov is also dead. The probability thatthey weren't both directly murdered is now very low...
distic
2mo ago
I like your pragmatism. There is a related argument: once there is democracy, the opposition candidate policy doesn't matter much, because you can choose another one if you want to.
distic
6mo ago
The original question was "why do neutral people not care?" not "is it good or bad". I think it is right to say that people do not care as it happens only to a small number of children, and also that it doesn't happen to children without their parent's consent. Which means that it may happen to children, but not to those of neutral people. That is why they don't care.
distic
6mo ago
Out of hate, perhaps? Or as a revenge? I'm pretty sure raping women is useless for the freedom of palestinians, it does not prevent hamas to do it. People do not always act in their best interests... if they did, there would be no suicide terror attack
distic
6mo ago
Even if it was possible (others have proved that it isn't a good idea), what makes you think that all of them would flee?
distic
7mo ago
But the second situation is not even possible, you cannot have a factory without any workers...
distic
7mo ago
Anarchism has never worked, what are you speaking about when you say "able to exist without a state to protect them"?
Anyway that is not really relevant. The fact is that companies get some advantages from modern states. They are more prosperous when the state protects them. So they have to accept the downsides that come with this prosperity.
distic
7mo ago
Authority argument are bad arguments, especially when they are about yourself.
A lot of theories (like quantum physics and evolution theory) derive from experiments. How does that make them non-theories? And because they are theories, they might be replaced by something better one day. However, the fact they explain will remain the same (excepted if we prove they were illusory). Things like that occured when subjective theory of value replaced objective theory of value, or when Einstein replaced Galileo.
But some specialist are unable to see the difference between the theory they learned and the fact it's supposed to explain. Most of the time they are the last ones supporting the old theory when everyone has moved on.
distic
10mo ago
although the Cold War meant that the Security Council never functioned as intended
Didn't it? I think the purpose of it was (as you explained...) to avoid a war between the great powers? It seems to me it succeeded quite well.
distic
10mo ago
An angry Bob in middle America has no power to formulate plans for middle East invasions and then put them into action.
Democracy means that everyone is responsible for what happens. Especially everyone which was in favor of the choice that was made. Sure, a guy in middle America wouldn't have been able to change anything himself, but it would have made a huge difference if a lot of angry Bob in middle America had opposed the war, instead of being in favor of it. The jews weren't a majority of the Bush electorate, and it's pretty clear that the Bush electorate supported the war.
Many Americans wanted revenge for 9/11. The direction those emotions were guided in and the actions those emotions were used to justify were completely the work of neocons and zionists. To pretend those two movements are not extremely jewish goes beyond any reason.
People were angry. They wanted a war. So they are not completely innocent. Moreover, the problem of the war in Irak was more the war than the fact that it happened in Irak. All the other possible targets of the "revenge" were even worse: Pakistan has nukes, Saudi Arabia has oil. Other countries had no responsibilities in 9/11. They could have argued for peace, but you know very well that it wouldn't have worked. Some people have tried (some of them jewish), but they have never been heard. So the neocons provided you with what you wanted: the best (or the least bad) target they could find. That was not the main problem. The problem was that an angry mob was asking for blood. Being dumb and emotional is no excuse.
Yes he was a drug addict but he had been for years and he dies the same day as Navalny.
And now a pilot who defected to Ukraine and lived in Spain...
More options
Context Copy link